Please note:The SCons wiki is now restored from the attack in March 2013. All old passwords have been invalidated. Please reset your password if you have an account. If you note missing pages, please report them to webmaster@scons.org. Also, new account creation is currently disabled due to an ongoing spam flood (2013/08/27).
   1 16:41:57 *	garyo-home (n=chatzill@209-6-158-38.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #scons
   2 16:50:31 *	stevenknight (n=stevenkn@c-67-164-61-68.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #scons
   3 16:51:41 <garyo-home>	Hi Steven; how's things?
   4 16:54:35 <stevenknight>	hey gary -- too much going on, as usual, but okay
   5 16:54:36 <stevenknight>	you?
   6 16:54:41 <garyo-home>	about the same.
   7 16:57:04 *	stevenknight tries to catch up on the spreadsheet
   8 16:58:49 *	garyo-home is doing the same
   9 17:01:11 *	GregNoel is no longer marked as being away
  10 17:01:06 <GregNoel>	Looks like there are at least three of us tonight...
  11 17:01:54 <GregNoel>	As I said in my email, I can only stay a half-hour, so we should get started.
  12 17:02:16 <garyo-home>	ok, fine w/ me.  I think someone is coming later too.
  13 17:02:31 *	bdbaddog (n=bdeegan@adsl-71-131-3-224.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net) has joined #scons
  14 17:02:33 <garyo-home>	2426 is the first...
  15 17:02:42 <garyo-home>	Hi Bill!
  16 17:03:07 <bdbaddog>	Hi
  17 17:03:14 <garyo-home>	Looking at 2426.
  18 17:03:45 <garyo-home>	I don't think tool*chain* redesign will help this issue particularly, I vote to put something reasonable in for 3.x.
  19 17:03:51 <GregNoel>	I still think it's invalid, and if we want an issue to make it configurable, we should add a new one.
  20 17:04:24 <garyo-home>	I'd be OK with that, but it'll be pretty similar to this one.
  21 17:04:28 <GregNoel>	but I'll go for 3.x with a change of subject
  22 17:04:34 <bdbaddog>	3.x
  23 17:04:39 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me.
  24 17:04:58 <GregNoel>	done, unless Steven has something
  25 17:05:13 <GregNoel>	(He's the other "invalid" vote)
  26 17:05:03 <stevenknight>	2426 is invalid
  27 17:05:10 <stevenknight>	he doesn't specify CPPPATH
  28 17:05:38 <stevenknight>	he'd have to add /usr/include to CPPPATH to find that <set> in preference to the current dir
  29 17:05:56 <stevenknight>	we can't know in advance what system directories a given compiler will search on its own
  30 17:05:40 <GregNoel>	Er, in that case, I'm back to invalid
  31 17:05:42 <bdbaddog>	invalid, open a new bug to make configurable
  32 17:05:50 <garyo-home>	steven: I take your meaning, but still it ought to be configurable.  (Maybe Greg's right, should be a new issue.)
  33 17:06:08 <stevenknight>	configurable how?  you can configure it right now in CPPPATH
  34 17:06:30 <stevenknight>	CPPPATH=['/usr/include/directory_containing_set'] would make his configuration work
  35 17:06:33 <garyo-home>	A search for a <> header should *never* match one in the current dir.
  36 17:06:36 <bdbaddog>	whether it looks in . first or last.
  37 17:06:54 <garyo-home>	(gcc and msvc don't look in . at all for <>)
  38 17:07:29 <garyo-home>	CPP_SCANNER_LOOK_IN_DOT_FOR_SYSINCLUDES
  39 17:07:29 <stevenknight>	okay, got it -- agree, new issue for configuring that behavior
  40 17:07:45 <GregNoel>	done
  41 17:07:53 <garyo-home>	ok, 2427
  42 17:08:24 <garyo-home>	Unfortunately this hack is what we have for now, I think we need to doc it.
  43 17:08:45 <bdbaddog>	doc +1
  44 17:09:04 <stevenknight>	agree, doc
  45 17:09:04 <GregNoel>	maybe doc with a note that it will disappear?
  46 17:09:20 <garyo-home>	... when a better mechanism is implemented.  Sure.
  47 17:09:44 <garyo-home>	The main thing wrong with it is it's global, and we really need a per-File thing.
  48 17:09:57 <garyo-home>	But anyway that's a different point.
  49 17:10:12 <stevenknight>	thought it was per-environment, so it can be configured
  50 17:10:25 <garyo-home>	Sorry, right it is per-env, but per-File is better.
  51 17:10:27 <stevenknight>	but I agree w/Greg's point about an Archive() being better in the long term
  52 17:11:03 <garyo-home>	I'm not 100% sure about how that would work but am willing to go with it for now.
  53 17:11:16 <stevenknight>	doc it
  54 17:11:24 <GregNoel>	is that a consensus?
  55 17:11:27 <garyo-home>	+1
  56 17:11:27 <stevenknight>	but should we mention it disappearing if we don't know what the replacement will be?
  57 17:11:34 <stevenknight>	that would bug me as a user
  58 17:11:46 <bdbaddog>	I'd say doc it, once we have a plan to replace, then add that to doc.
  59 17:11:52 <stevenknight>	+1
  60 17:11:56 <garyo-home>	Or deprecate it the usual way.
  61 17:12:08 <garyo-home>	doc it for now anyway.
  62 17:12:20 <GregNoel>	done
  63 17:12:41 <stevenknight>	2428:  consensus 3.x  p4 ?
  64 17:13:15 <garyo-home>	2428 consensus ok w/ me.
  65 17:13:17 <bdbaddog>	2428 +1 consensus
  66 17:13:25 <GregNoel>	done
  67 17:13:29 <GregNoel>	2429
  68 17:14:05 <garyo-home>	I think it's a real bug.
  69 17:14:12 <bdbaddog>	ditto.
  70 17:14:17 <stevenknight>	agree
  71 17:14:47 <GregNoel>	The OE is an internal object, but its effects are visible, so it's a bug.
  72 17:14:34 <garyo-home>	2.x p2?
  73 17:14:45 <bdbaddog>	2.x p2 +1
  74 17:14:56 <GregNoel>	agree
  75 17:14:57 <garyo-home>	agreed.
  76 17:14:58 <stevenknight>	2.x p2
  77 17:15:09 <GregNoel>	who?
  78 17:15:22 <stevenknight>	i have a prototype of a really different substitution mechanism that looks faster
  79 17:15:37 <GregNoel>	Sounds like a volunteer to me.
  80 17:15:37 <garyo-home>	But it may not even be subst related?
  81 17:15:53 <garyo-home>	steven, go for it.
  82 17:16:33 <GregNoel>	Bug is because call is applied to Env, not OE.
  83 17:16:40 <garyo-home>	Put a note in that I'll do it if Steven doesn't get to it.
  84 17:17:03 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll add you to the issue.
  85 17:17:14 <garyo-home>	+1
  86 17:18:00 <garyo-home>	done?
  87 17:18:20 <GregNoel>	yes, done
  88 17:18:28 <stevenknight>	(sorry, afk for a bit)
  89 17:18:56 <stevenknight>	the prototype would basically replace OverrideEnvironment
  90 17:19:15 <stevenknight>	so there wouldn't be any distinction between "real" and "override"
  91 17:19:18 <stevenknight>	they're just all stackable dicts
  92 17:19:34 <stevenknight>	it takes the technique of string.Template and extends it for our purposes
  93 17:19:43 <garyo-home>	steven: that sounds great.  I'll help test it :-)
  94 17:19:49 <GregNoel>	as will I
  95 17:19:58 <stevenknight>	the problem I'm running into is that subst_list() basically has really dumb and ill-defined semantics
  96 17:20:20 <garyo-home>	steven: 110% agreement there.  We've been through a few oddities with it.
  97 17:20:09 <stevenknight>	i should write up a discussion for the ML
  98 17:20:13 <GregNoel>	yes
  99 17:20:11 <stevenknight>	anyway, back to the issues
 100 17:18:13 <GregNoel>	2430, 2431, consensus
 101 17:18:18 <garyo-home>	agreed.
 102 17:18:54 <GregNoel>	2432, 2433, consensus
 103 17:19:18 <GregNoel>	2434, closed
 104 17:20:31 <garyo-home>	I'm fine thru 2434.
 105 17:20:44 <GregNoel>	2441, needs priority
 106 17:20:54 <garyo-home>	p3?
 107 17:21:01 <bdbaddog>	+1 p3
 108 17:21:05 <stevenknight>	p3
 109 17:21:06 <GregNoel>	works for me
 110 17:21:24 <garyo-home>	great
 111 17:21:39 <stevenknight>	2435:  since I just attached my name to OverrideEnvironments...
 112 17:22:26 <stevenknight>	2.x p3 stevenknight 
 113 17:22:28 <garyo-home>	agreed, this one's related.  It can get arbitrarily complex, but this proposal is pretty reasonable.  Would it fit with stacked dicts?
 114 17:22:46 <GregNoel>	The global names are available, and I looked at how hard the implementation would be once (should also work for env.Clone()) and it didn't look that bad.
 115 17:22:47 *	stevenknight goes to look at the original issue...
 116 17:23:43 <stevenknight>	yes, i think stackable environments takes care of this
 117 17:23:49 <stevenknight>	or most of what people want from it, anyway
 118 17:23:58 <GregNoel>	This is newenv = Environment(CPPFLAGS = Append('whatever'))
 119 17:24:22 <garyo-home>	right; the override env has to append to the original env.
 120 17:24:47 <garyo-home>	anyway, Steven will look at it, let's move on.
 121 17:25:00 <stevenknight>	i don't think that specific syntax is viable, but the concept is the same
 122 17:24:56 <GregNoel>	done
 123 17:25:18 <stevenknight>	moving on...
 124 17:25:30 <garyo-home>	2436: I'll take it
 125 17:25:43 <stevenknight>	garyo-home++
 126 17:25:48 <bdbaddog>	Gary+1
 127 17:25:49 <GregNoel>	(Hmmm...  I think my spreadsheet just crashed.)
 128 17:26:17 <garyo-home>	my gdocs still shows you viewing...
 129 17:26:28 <bdbaddog>	ditto.
 130 17:26:46 <stevenknight>	2437:  consensus 2.1 p3 ludwig
 131 17:26:57 <garyo-home>	agreed
 132 17:27:16 <stevenknight>	2438:  2.1 p3 who?
 133 17:27:23 <stevenknight>	could kick it back to Jason for the test case
 134 17:27:31 <stevenknight>	but still needs a comitter
 135 17:27:41 <garyo-home>	I'll commit it and work w/ him to get the testcase.
 136 17:27:49 <bdbaddog>	+1 gary
 137 17:28:01 <stevenknight>	thnx
 138 17:28:54 <GregNoel>	2438, look at SQEC to see if it gives you any ideas
 139 17:29:28 <garyo-home>	2438 wouldn't be needed w/ SQEC I agree, but in the near term...
 140 17:31:02 <stevenknight>	SQEC?
 141 17:31:25 <garyo-home>	"SubstQuoteEscapeCache"
 142 17:31:29 <stevenknight>	ah
 143 17:28:36 <GregNoel>	(Google spreadsheets lost my login, but I'm back...)
 144 17:28:34 <stevenknight>	2439:  2.1 p3
 145 17:28:47 <stevenknight>	who?
 146 17:29:47 <garyo-home>	someone want to integrate 2439?
 147 17:30:03 <bdbaddog>	I'll take it.
 148 17:30:10 <garyo-home>	excellent
 149 17:30:22 <GregNoel>	ok, works for me
 150 17:30:49 <GregNoel>	2440, 2442, consensus
 151 17:30:50 <garyo-home>	Greg, before you have to go, want to talk about 1.3?
 152 17:31:06 <garyo-home>	(agree w/ 2440, 2442)
 153 17:31:45 <GregNoel>	garyo-home, I'll leave my session running; I'll read it later
 154 17:31:59 <garyo-home>	ok, sounds good.
 155 17:32:16 <GregNoel>	2443
 156 17:32:17 <garyo-home>	2443's next.
 157 17:32:39 <garyo-home>	Steven: what about the line I list as suspect?
 158 17:33:03 <stevenknight>	2443:  sounds exactly right
 159 17:33:25 <stevenknight>	i thought sure we had/have some tests of aliases with actions
 160 17:33:44 <stevenknight>	either i'm hallucinating or those take a different code path
 161 17:33:53 <bdbaddog>	I"m looking at the path, and suspect maybe he's got a locally modified scons?
 162 17:34:10 <bdbaddog>	/home/Checkouts/Bazaar/SCons_trunk/...
 163 17:34:05 <garyo-home>	Well, this is a pretty nice testcase in the ticket.
 164 17:34:18 <stevenknight>	greg confirmed the failure
 165 17:34:30 <bdbaddog>	ah..true.
 166 17:34:32 <bdbaddog>	donno.
 167 17:34:53 <garyo-home>	There's no way that line 699 in Action.py can work.
 168 17:34:54 <bdbaddog>	is this a 1.3 type issue? or 2.x?
 169 17:35:14 <garyo-home>	Good q.  What's the 1.3 schedule? Frozen?
 170 17:35:47 *	garyo-home hears nothing... great silence...
 171 17:35:50 <bdbaddog>	my understanding was. One more checkpoint wait 2 weeks if nothings seriously broken then 1.3
 172 17:36:04 <bdbaddog>	then charge forward to 2.0
 173 17:36:19 <stevenknight>	uhh....
 174 17:36:23 <stevenknight>	that line looks fine, actually,
 175 17:36:27 <garyo-home>	That works for me; if so, then this can get squeezed into 1.3.
 176 17:36:30 <stevenknight>	it's calling the Environment.subst_list() method
 177 17:36:36 <stevenknight>	not Subst.scons_subst_list()
 178 17:36:45 <stevenknight>	Environment.subst_list() does take an executor= keyword argument
 179 17:36:47 <garyo-home>	Right, but that eventually calls scons_subst_list.
 180 17:37:11 <garyo-home>	Ah, the env's subst_list should strip it out?
 181 17:37:19 <stevenknight>	right, but it doesn't try to pass executor= to it
 182 17:37:22 <stevenknight>	so far as i can see
 183 17:37:25 <GregNoel>	Taking too long; defer until next time
 184 17:37:31 <stevenknight>	GregNoel++
 185 17:37:41 <garyo-home>	hmm, ok.
 186 17:38:03 <GregNoel>	I propose to stop here and go on to 1.3 discussion.
 187 17:38:05 <bdbaddog>	put research bill? 
 188 17:38:22 <garyo-home>	ok w/ me!
 189 17:38:25 <stevenknight>	2443 research bill ok by  me
 190 17:38:38 <bdbaddog>	o.k. on to 1.3
 191 17:39:02 <garyo-home>	Bill, are you still OK making the checkpoint?
 192 17:39:05 <GregNoel>	ARGV, got to go; cul
 193 17:39:12 <garyo-home>	ok bye
 194 17:39:21 <stevenknight>	later
 195 17:39:31 <bdbaddog>	Later Greg!
 196 17:39:37 <garyo-home>	I've done one before, I can help if needed.
 197 17:39:49 <stevenknight>	if it would help, i could open up the system that I use for cutting the releases
 198 17:39:53 <bdbaddog>	yes. Just taking a bit to get the changes together and coherent. the other parst are easy.
 199 17:39:55 <stevenknight>	it's a VM
 200 17:40:04 <bdbaddog>	ahh.
 201 17:40:10 <bdbaddog>	how big's the footprint?
 202 17:40:24 <bdbaddog>	I can bring you a usb hardrive..
 203 17:40:33 <stevenknight>	i was going to let you ssh in
 204 17:40:38 <bdbaddog>	oh. o.k.
 205 17:40:53 <stevenknight>	but the creation of the image is also automated
 206 17:41:22 <garyo-home>	I have a small VM (ubuntu) that can build a release, w/ doc tools etc. if that helps?
 207 17:41:47 <bdbaddog>	I'm not too worried about that part. It's just been tough getting a block of time to get the text part together.
 208 17:42:09 <stevenknight>	that's usually been the most time-consuming part for me, too
 209 17:42:29 <bdbaddog>	I think we should start to enforce/encourage update Changes.txt with each checkin.
 210 17:42:37 <bdbaddog>	and the release message.
 211 17:42:50 <bdbaddog>	though svn would be fine too.
 212 17:43:01 <bdbaddog>	and then pushing the button is easy.
 213 17:42:35 <garyo-home>	Want to write it as a google doc w/ irc?
 214 17:42:45 <garyo-home>	+1 on both of those!
 215 17:43:22 <bdbaddog>	I'll try and get it done tonight.
 216 17:43:39 <garyo-home>	OK, if you want review just let me know.
 217 17:44:15 <stevenknight>	agree on CHANGES.txt
 218 17:44:19 <bdbaddog>	sure. I'll send out text to release mail list for review. And then how do we post it to all the correct places.
 219 17:44:32 <garyo-home>	That, for me, was time consuming.
 220 17:44:45 <stevenknight>	yes
 221 17:44:46 <bdbaddog>	Changes.txt and release notice.
 222 17:44:50 <garyo-home>	Tigris, sf, website...
 223 17:45:15 <stevenknight>	first, we should give you appropriate privileges on those sites
 224 17:45:24 <stevenknight>	and then second, there's gotta be a way to automate doing those
 225 17:45:13 <bdbaddog>	so the changes and release are since 1.2.x or since last checkpoint?
 226 17:45:36 <stevenknight>	last checkpoint
 227 17:45:53 <garyo-home>	(but the 1.3 changes will be from 1.2)
 228 17:45:59 <bdbaddog>	yes.
 229 17:45:57 <stevenknight>	originally i started trying to adjust CHANGES.txt so it would be since last release (e.g. 1.2.x)
 230 17:46:01 <stevenknight>	but that got too confusing
 231 17:46:25 <stevenknight>	seemed easier to grok that all of the accumulated checkpoints since the last 1.2.x line in CHANGES.txt
 232 17:46:31 <stevenknight>	were part of 1.3.x
 233 17:46:26 <garyo-home>	If we have people update it on commit, won't it have to be since last release?
 234 17:46:30 <bdbaddog>	Could have Changes.release.txt and Changes.Checkpoint.txt or something like that.
 235 17:47:02 <stevenknight>	?  not following
 236 17:47:17 <garyo-home>	Maybe on release we could just remove the checkpoint lines, leaving only the changes?
 237 17:47:21 <bdbaddog>	so 3 files. Changes.txt which is running change list.
 238 17:47:44 <bdbaddog>	hmm. never mind.. 
 239 17:47:50 <bdbaddog>	o.k. I like Gary's idea.
 240 17:48:02 <stevenknight>	could do that
 241 17:48:02 <bdbaddog>	since the checkpoints are discardable.
 242 17:48:14 <garyo-home>	right.
 243 17:48:24 <stevenknight>	but I think some people do treat the checkpoints as releases
 244 17:48:45 <stevenknight>	is there actual harm in preserving the info?
 245 17:48:53 <garyo-home>	it's just visual noise.
 246 17:49:08 <garyo-home>	Maybe we indent those or something.
 247 17:49:19 <bdbaddog>	O.k. also, let's checkin the announcment file, which get's wiped clean at each real release?
 248 17:49:45 <bdbaddog>	And for checkpoints, let just refer people to the changes.txt ?
 249 17:50:16 <garyo-home>	+1 on checking in the announcement file for sure.
 250 17:50:33 <stevenknight>	dunno, doesn't seem worth extra effort to remove and reorganize
 251 17:50:42 <stevenknight>	+1 to checking in announcement
 252 17:50:49 <stevenknight>	yeah
 253 17:51:17 <bdbaddog>	O.k. I"ll check in a Blank.
 254 17:51:30 <garyo-home>	release-announcement.txt?  RELEASE.txt?
 255 17:51:53 <bdbaddog>	Announcement.txt ?
 256 17:52:08 <garyo-home>	works for me
 257 17:52:46 <stevenknight>	announcement.txt (your choice capitlization)
 258 17:53:11 <garyo-home>	So for changes.txt we'll leave the checkpoints in for now (maybe indent or something)?
 259 17:53:46 <bdbaddog>	Yes. I guess we can just leave what's there now. And when we go 2.0 move Changes.txt to Changes-1.txt
 260 17:53:53 <bdbaddog>	In 2.0 indent checkpoints?
 261 17:54:31 <garyo-home>	Sure, we can iron out the details when we get there.
 262 17:54:49 <stevenknight>	yeah
 263 17:54:51 <garyo-home>	(I'd be OK w/ deleting the older checkpoints too, just keep 1 release back or so)
 264 17:55:23 <bdbaddog>	Can we breach a 2.0 topic?
 265 17:55:24 <bdbaddog>	;)
 266 17:55:27 <stevenknight>	but i personally wouldn't invest a lot of time on it, it doesn't seem like anyone's really complaining
 267 17:55:38 <bdbaddog>	ok.
 268 17:55:42 <garyo-home>	agreed.
 269 17:55:50 <garyo-home>	sure, 2.0?
 270 17:55:56 <stevenknight>	to really clean it up, you not only have to delete the checkpoint lines, but you have to merge the individual contributor sections
 271 17:56:06 <garyo-home>	(good point)
 272 17:56:00 <stevenknight>	2.0
 273 17:56:30 <bdbaddog>	:) My normal python question. Since time has marched on and we drew the line in the sand a while back, can we more to a newer version for 2.0 than python 2.2?
 274 17:57:25 <garyo-home>	what features would we gain by going to, say, 2.3?
 275 17:57:51 *	stevenknight will go with the collective wisdom
 276 17:57:53 <bdbaddog>	2.5 gets us subprocess right?
 277 17:57:53 <stevenknight>	that said
 278 17:58:23 <stevenknight>	2.3 did seem only marginally better than 2.2
 279 17:58:27 <stevenknight>	2.4 starts to get significant
 280 17:58:29 <stevenknight>	iirc
 281 17:58:51 <garyo-home>	We already have a bunch of compat stuff; I think it would have to be a language feature.
 282 17:58:53 <stevenknight>	i don't think modules (e.g. subprocess) are a compelling reason to prefer one over the other
 283 17:58:59 <stevenknight>	because we can handle them in compat
 284 17:59:18 <stevenknight>	agree w/gary, language features are stronger determinants
 285 17:59:33 <bdbaddog>	2.5 gets' with.
 286 17:59:41 <garyo-home>	What about unicode? Anything important?
 287 18:00:08 <stevenknight>	i'd have a hard time going with 2.5; google internal standard is still 2.4
 288 18:00:20 <garyo-home>	Bill: do you think we could really jump all the way to 2.5 though?  We'll lose all the IRIX people for sure, and some older Linuxes too.
 289 18:00:47 <bdbaddog>	does python 2.5 not build on irix?
 290 18:01:02 <bdbaddog>	2.4 gets us generators.
 291 18:01:15 <garyo-home>	Last I knew the latest nekochan build was 2.3.
 292 18:01:26 <bdbaddog>	do you not build from sources?
 293 18:02:11 <garyo-home>	I take it back, there's a 2.5.2 there now.
 294 18:02:38 <garyo-home>	(It's not what *I* do, it's what my *users* do. :-/)
 295 18:02:50 <bdbaddog>	ahh. users=customers?
 296 18:02:54 <garyo-home>	yep.
 297 18:02:59 <bdbaddog>	they build from sources?
 298 18:03:04 <stevenknight>	2.3 gets generators
 299 18:03:15 <garyo-home>	of course they won't run scons.  I'm just using them as an example of "typical IRIX users"
 300 18:03:32 <garyo-home>	generators are very useful.
 301 18:04:00 <stevenknight>	2.4 has decorators, which are kind of nifty but basically syntactic sugar for something you can code by hand
 302 18:04:03 <garyo-home>	... but you can import generators from future in 2.2 (I think)
 303 18:04:12 <bdbaddog>	I've never been in an environment where I couldn't build a new version of scripting language for use by build system.
 304 18:04:38 <bdbaddog>	true on decorators, but anything which makes the code easier to read will be a win..
 305 18:04:48 <stevenknight>	true
 306 18:04:56 <garyo-home>	One good thing is, once we have Lukas's all-in-one Windows installer, we won't even require python on a windows box.
 307 18:04:59 <bdbaddog>	I'd be up for saying 2.5, pushing the checkpoitn with it and 1.3
 308 18:05:06 <bdbaddog>	and if the world freaks out, we backtrack.
 309 18:05:14 <bdbaddog>	we'lll have some time before 2.0's out.
 310 18:05:27 <stevenknight>	probably
 311 18:05:50 <stevenknight>	i'd have a lot of internal projects thought that would break
 312 18:06:13 <stevenknight>	though
 313 18:06:16 <garyo-home>	I'd be pretty scared to go to 2.5
 314 18:06:32 <stevenknight>	i can see either 2.3 or 2.4
 315 18:06:34 <bdbaddog>	steven - due to 2.4 internal to google?
 316 18:06:41 <stevenknight>	yes
 317 18:06:41 <bdbaddog>	o.k. let's go with 2.4
 318 18:07:01 <bdbaddog>	If we slip another 6 months or more on 2.0, then revisit.
 319 18:07:07 <bdbaddog>	and/or google updates to 2.5.. 
 320 18:07:09 <bdbaddog>	;)
 321 18:07:13 <stevenknight>	yes  :-)
 322 18:07:27 <bdbaddog>	Gary - what'd be the basis of your fear?
 323 18:07:40 <garyo-home>	from http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/01/brief-timeline-of-python.html, 2.4 was Nov 2004.
 324 18:07:43 <bdbaddog>	then again I"m the let's break some egg's kind of guy.
 325 18:07:55 <bdbaddog>	5 years ago almost.
 326 18:07:55 <stevenknight>	how about we poll the ML for objections to 2.4, with 2.3 as the fallback?
 327 18:07:57 <garyo-home>	My fear? We lose users due to them not being able to upgrade their pythons.
 328 18:08:10 <garyo-home>	+1 on poll ML (again :-))
 329 18:08:12 <bdbaddog>	they'll yell at us, and we can backtrack.
 330 18:08:39 <bdbaddog>	I think the mailing list hasn't provided any insight, and the only reall proof will be when the tool starts yelling at the users.
 331 18:08:42 <stevenknight>	okay, how about:  release 1.3 first
 332 18:08:48 <bdbaddog>	:)
 333 18:08:49 <stevenknight>	then float 2.4 on the ML
 334 18:09:06 <bdbaddog>	well we'd be putting the warning in 1.3 about next version 2.x minimum right?
 335 18:09:31 <bdbaddog>	that's why I bring it up now.
 336 18:09:54 <garyo-home>	hmm.
 337 18:10:13 <stevenknight>	ah
 338 18:10:45 <garyo-home>	even if disablable, that's a little annoying.
 339 18:10:59 <bdbaddog>	don't we alreayd have that in place for 2.2?
 340 18:11:11 <garyo-home>	do we?
 341 18:11:25 <stevenknight>	sorry bill, you kicked the ball in your own goal -- i'm back to preferring 2.3 ... :-)
 342 18:11:41 <bdbaddog>	oh dude.. ur killin me.
 343 18:12:06 <bdbaddog>	2.3 is 2003.
 344 18:12:08 <garyo-home>	(my vm is being annoying, or I'd look)
 345 18:12:11 <bdbaddog>	6 years aog.
 346 18:12:20 <stevenknight>	so we turn the clock forward five years!
 347 18:12:27 <bdbaddog>	wheel's were square then.
 348 18:12:37 <stevenknight>	that's almost half way!
 349 18:12:40 <stevenknight>	:-)
 350 18:12:58 <garyo-home>	Steven: what changed your mind 2.4 -> 2.3?  I don't think we'd lose that many users.
 351 18:13:01 <bdbaddog>	I don't think anyones using 2.3
 352 18:13:08 <stevenknight>	having to put the warning in 1.3
 353 18:13:23 <garyo-home>	But Bill's saying we already have a warning.
 354 18:13:27 <bdbaddog>	we can always patch it back in 1.3.1 if we get a lot of negative feedback.
 355 18:13:52 *	stevenknight breathes deeply
 356 18:14:01 <stevenknight>	oooo... kayyyy....
 357 18:14:14 <bdbaddog>	it'd be a 1 line patch and realease. if it's really bad.
 358 18:14:36 <stevenknight>	you want to make the change in this checkpoint?  or only for 1.3 release?
 359 18:15:04 <bdbaddog>	hmm.
 360 18:15:08 <garyo-home>	If we get zero feedback from the warning, then I think we're safe.  If we get even one negative, I'll want to revisit.
 361 18:15:12 <bdbaddog>	if the codes already there then for checkpoint.
 362 18:15:21 <garyo-home>	bdbaddog: agreed.
 363 18:15:22 <stevenknight>	warning in a checkpoint, or in a release?
 364 18:15:40 <garyo-home>	both (assuming it's already there now)
 365 18:15:40 <bdbaddog>	checkpoint if the check is already there, otherwise 1.3
 366 18:15:59 <stevenknight>	although some people treat checkpoints as release, people that are still using 2.3 are unlikely to track checkpoints
 367 18:16:23 <stevenknight>	so silence from the checkpoint warning has strong potential to be a false positive
 368 18:16:25 <garyo-home>	agreed. iit needs to be there in 1.3 anyway.
 369 18:16:50 <stevenknight>	okay, i can go with it
 370 18:17:04 <stevenknight>	now we just have to twist Greg's arm after he reads this... :-)
 371 18:17:08 <bdbaddog>	codes already there.
 372 18:17:12 <bdbaddog>	:)
 373 18:17:22 <bdbaddog>	eh.. sorry I can't hear you.. zztt zttt static on the line..
 374 18:17:26 <bdbaddog>	True.
 375 18:17:27 <garyo-home>	... so our existing checkpoint is already warning at 2.2?
 376 18:17:29 <stevenknight>	you sneak, you... :-)
 377 18:17:34 <bdbaddog>	yes. already there.
 378 18:17:42 <bdbaddog>	I didn't do it. somebody else did it.
 379 18:17:52 <stevenknight>	oh, wait -- i knew it was warning re: 2.2
 380 18:17:57 <garyo-home>	Right, I kind of remember that now.
 381 18:18:00 <stevenknight>	i thought you meant you already checked in the 2.4 warning
 382 18:18:00 <bdbaddog>	yes warning 2.2
 383 18:18:11 <bdbaddog>	no.. didn't do that.. dang. wish I'd thought of that.
 384 18:18:13 <garyo-home>	So we just bump that warning level up a notch.
 385 18:18:20 <bdbaddog>	exactly.
 386 18:18:21 <stevenknight>	right
 387 18:18:23 <garyo-home>	or two.
 388 18:18:29 <stevenknight>	or .2
 389 18:18:30 <bdbaddog>	+.2
 390 18:18:36 <garyo-home>	ok, I'm on board, let's see what happens.
 391 18:18:49 <bdbaddog>	o.k. I just don't want the project to get stuck in the past like Plone..
 392 18:18:58 <bdbaddog>	and be too worried about moving forward.
 393 18:19:18 <garyo-home>	right, or like not changing Makefile tab syntax because it already had 100 users.
 394 18:19:45 <garyo-home>	ok, so we can call it a night I think?
 395 18:19:52 <bdbaddog>	yes. Thanks to all!
 396 18:19:55 <garyo-home>	Bill, let me know if I can help w/ the checkpoint.
 397 18:20:10 <bdbaddog>	will do. I'll try to get the text out tonight and packages ready too.
 398 18:20:17 <garyo-home>	Sounds great.
 399 18:20:34 <garyo-home>	Thanks all.
 400 18:20:36 <garyo-home>	cul
 401 18:20:40 <bdbaddog>	if whomever can give me access to the appropriate uploads I'd need can do that and/or push the packages when done.
 402 18:20:59 <garyo-home>	Oh yeah, Steven, can you do that?
 403 18:21:40 <garyo-home>	I'll email you the website login/password, Bill.
 404 18:22:03 <bdbaddog>	k. thanks. 
 405 18:22:11 <stevenknight>	okay, i'll add bill to SF, tigris.org and...  what else?
 406 18:22:21 <stevenknight>	feel like i'm missing something
 407 18:22:26 <stevenknight>	pair.com?
 408 18:22:37 <garyo-home>	I think it's just those two, I'll get him the pair login/password.
 409 18:22:46 <stevenknight>	okay, i'll take sf and tigris.org
 410 18:22:48 <stevenknight>	many thanks guys
 411 18:22:52 <garyo-home>	np
 412 18:23:08 <garyo-home>	'night.
 413 18:23:16 <bdbaddog>	night!
 414 18:38:17 *	garyo-home has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.5.2/20090729225027]")
 415 19:12:38 *	stevenknight has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
 416 20:31:57 *	GregNoel has been marked as being away
 417 

BugParty/IrcLog2009-08-25 (last edited 2009-08-27 20:40:33 by ip68-7-77-81)